NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:07 AM) People today are totally dependant on the banks loaning money today. Typically people have car loans, student loans, mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans etc. That didn't happen in the 30's. The banking sector collapse reverberated through the economy big time back then, even when most people did not need the banks like they do today. Banking liquidity has a much larger affect on today's world. And see, there is a key there - the loan dependency is a definite issue, but I actually think the belt tightening on loans will be a good thing in the long run. People get loans on too many things, and run up credit card bills for too many others. If it gets harder to do that, there will be an ugly interim adjustment period, but then people will simply not be able to stretch as far, and that's actually good. I just don't think this is like the pre-depression days here. I don't see it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:15 AM) I agree, but only to an extent - personally, I think that minimum wage laws should have a floor, but me legistlated from the state level and not the federal. A $10.50 minimum wage will hit harder in Nebraska then it would in New York, or Illinois. Different areas of the country have different needs and can absorb it differently. That's definitely true, and some states already do that. The floor can be federal, but should be based on living in a state with the lowest cost of living. Then adjust COLA for it based on a survery of market basket increase in, say, the lowest 5 states. Other states can, and should, then increase on their own as needed.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:54 AM) Sure it's overly simplisitic. But in this case, listen to what Obama's going to do. I'm telling you, what you're saying here is enough that the man shouldn't even get serious consideration for the presidency, because he's going to fundamentally destroy the system (yes, destroy is my choice of words). Let's increase the minimum wage to $10+ an hour, index it to inflation, WOOT! THAT way, the RICH and dirty corporations will have to pay the POOR more!!! Bulls***. The "rich" and "corporations" will just stop hiring. What will that do? And then, contract the earnings, tax those more... you get the picture. Jimmy Carter waves hi. Actually, I agree with Obama that the minimum wage needs a serious bump, and an inflationary increase built in. I don't have a target number in mind because I don't have the data in front of me, but, it hasn't increased anywhere near inflation since it was installed. Yes, it will result in some limited decreases in hiring, but not that much - places that are looking for minimum wagers are ALWAYS hiring, its the nature of it. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:55 AM) I'd actually argue with the savings rates and borrowing rates of today, a liquidity crisis is worse today than it was then. people are a lot more dependant on the financial sector than they were 80 years ago. OK, see, that's the opposite of logical to me. Which means I must be missing something in what you are saying. Can you clarify?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:43 AM) The sector itself is in a liquidity crisis. The Fed Bank has been printing money like it has been going out of style to prop them up. Sort of. I mean yes, the financial industry has all sorts of cards propping it up, and you could in theory say there is a liquidity crisis for that industry. And as I'm sure you'd say, yes, that effects everyone. But this is not the same type of liquidity crisis, in scale or nature, that was going on in the 20's and 30's.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:40 AM) With everything else he wants to do, Clinton era tax rates will explode the deficit worse then it is now. I am personally not a subscriber to the idea that raising taxes lowers gov't income and vice versa, always. I think there is truth to the idea that tax receipts are NOT perfectly in line with increases or decreases in tax rates - so I agree with the general principal behind it. But I think that this idea that raising taxes will lower gov't income no matter what, is just as silly as saying that increasing taxes X% will have that same X% increase in gov't income. They are both, in my view, laughably oversimplistic views. I actually think that PERSONAL spending is becoming less and less sensitive to tax rates. People in this country spend and spend, its what they do. Rich people, even if they see big tax increases, will still spend nearly the same amount. Poor people and middle income people, in this Obama model, would actually have more cash in pocket, and will spend even more. So in terms of consumer spending, I think his tax increases will probably have a near net zero effect. HOWEVER, I see a LOT of danger in his desire to make changes to taxes on cap gains, and on businesses. I think those increase would see a definite and significant decrease in business spending, and bad things happening in the markets. Not only will that screw up people's retirements, more immediately, it puts peoples' employers in a bad financial position as their market value fades and their profits drop. This pressure will, as it always does, be moved down the chain to the bottom rungs, where people will get laid off, not get raises, not get new jobs, etc. In short, I have zero problem with removing the SS income cap (Obama's plan is slightly different than this though). I also have zero problem with a slight rebalancing of income taxes from middle to top, as long as the overall revenue stream remains constant. But I have SERIOUS problems with increases in cap gains taxes, and any increases in taxes on businesses. And be careful here - if you overregulate an industry, that is in effect a taxation on that business line.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) Not as much as you think. Early on the big problem was a liquidity cruch in the financial sector. This was compounded by the rich quiting spending, and the banks raising rates out of site which completely stunted growth, in fact it set of a de-inflationary cycle which decimated the economy. So now to compound the liquidity crisis and the fall of bank lending, Obama wants to take money out of the pockets of the few people who are still able to spend in this economy. We are not in a liquidity crisis, in my view. Not nearly. But I agree that Obama's tinkering with the taxes like this is a generally bad idea when the economy is struggling. A few small changes might be needed, but, he's talking about some major fundamental shifts. One other caveat though - his plans for tax increases are not as drastic as some are portraying them. That is what I was trying to point out as well. He basically wants to return to Clinton-level taxes on income and cap gains. I don't agree with those changes, but, its not as if he's reaching for new heights here.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) It has been a running joke for a while now about Williams asking the veterans what they think the team needs at the deadline. Just thought I would post this. I think this is interesting, since I see some people post in here that attitude, personality and chemistry don't have an effect on teams. I find that a little ridiculous - like people think its a video game. Here we see how much effect those things can and do have, admitedly in the extreme in this case. Manny Ramirez, all star caliber player, and yet the team wanted him gone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:20 AM) In other words, McCain's policy stuff isn't my favorite, but Obama's looks to me like Hoover trying to avert the depression. Well, I think that's a stretch, but I understand your point. My biggest concerns with Obama are his economic and tax policy statements.

QUOTE (Felix @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) That would be awesome. Disagree. I like Depp, but, I thought Jim Carrey was a pretty much perfect Riddler (even though the film was pretty bad).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) I don't know what his deal is this year but I think Paulie is a better defensive 1B then Swish. I think Swish is better overall, but, they do both have certain aspects of the game they excel at. Swish has better range and a better arm. Paulie is better handling bad throws.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 09:39 AM) One of the man reasons for the bubble burst was lack of oversight. Which bubble are you referring to here? Because I really don't think the tech bubble, which started to burst in '98 and imploded in 2000, was a matter of lack of oversight. That may have been a smaller contributing factor, but, it wasn't the primary driver.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 09:31 AM) Obama's proposals for economy. This is sort of ironic - BS asked what was seen in MCCAIN that was positive, and the response is a negative on Obama. I actually happen to agree, in general (with some exceptions), I don't like Obama's economic policies either. But this is an illustration of how much this campaign has been all about Obama, for good AND for bad. Anyone who thinks Obama isn't getting pummelled in the media must be missing something, and McCain is just jumping in. This is a bad idea for McCain, IMO. If you make it all about Barack, he starts to look like the President in Waiting. McCain's campaign has been dismal so far.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) nah, he's a long man. Jose and Liney take Richard and Masset's spots on the 25 man. Agree, in the long term. But there is still the question of what happens between now and the time that Linebrink returns. Do they just go with one less in the pen until then, with Griffey taking Masset's roster spot? Or do they call someone up (Childers, MacDougal, Russell, whomever) in the short term? And for those who keep saying that MacD has been doing well lately, I am not sure where you get that idea. His last 10 appearances, he has a 5.40 ERA, a 1.97 WHIP. His Avg Against in June-July is .297, and his OBP Against is .391. He's not doing any better, he's the same MacDougal he's been all season. If we call someone up for a week or two before Liney is ready, I'd like to see Childers, or Russell again.

Is David Cook injured? He hasn't played in over a week.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 03:02 PM) Can you trust Carrasco to continue to be effective as a long - man, and for Wasserman to be the 1 inning ROOGY though? I think we can upgrade there. It may not be a factor come playoff time if we make it, but it may help us win an extra game or 2 by upgrading that spot right there. Whether Grabow is the best fit or not though, I don't know. Both of them could be upgraded of course. But I don't consider a Grabow-level guy to be that. Carrasco is the long man - there aren't really a lot of truly great long relievers out there, because its the bottom rung job. If you can find one, great, but they are rare. And Wassermann isn't really a ROOGY anymore anyway, now that he has a change. He showed that the other night against the Twins. He's a 1 to 2 inning reliever who induces groundballs, gives the hitters a different look, but isn't dominant. There are certainly better relievers out there, but, look at it in terms of value. How much would a relief pitcher that is a significant upgrade there cost you? And aren't most of those that are that good, doing setup or closing work? Would they be happy being the 4th guy on the totem poll?

I suppose they could mean a minor leaguer, like a David Cook or something.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 02:46 PM) I remember the NY media speculated about getting him before they got Marte and said it would only take a mid - level prospect most likely. I take that with a grain of salt, but if the price was right and with Masset gone, we need another reliever IMHO. I know I'm in the minority here, but, assuming Linebrink is healthy and will really be back soon, then I don't see the Sox needing relief help. A pen of Jenks-Linebrink-Dotel-Thornton-Logan-Wassermann-Carrasco is, IMO, better than most teams run out there. If you can upgrade one of those last three, great, but I don't see Grabow as any significant upgrade to Logan (which is who he'd be replacing, I assume).

The only guy on the Sox who I would describe as a "OF/DH type" is Dye, and there is no way they are trading him for pitching help.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) He was meant to be in the Manny deal IIRC. If you only had to give up a mid - level prospect, I'd be for it, especially with Boone being very inconsistent lately. I don't know the guy, but looking at his career, I'd rather stick with Boone.

Linky Discuss.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) This is crunch time. Final terms have to be decided in about a half hour, so this when it gets tense. Usually, 4-5 deals get announced RIGHT at the deadline. How fitting. Storms rolling into Chicago right now. Looks ugly out there.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 01:15 PM) Any thoughts on who would be Soxy? Maybe Angelina Jolie could be Soxy.

Speaking of which... Judge rules that White House aides can in fact be subpoenaed by Congress.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) White Sox confirm Griffey will start in CF regularly, with Konerko going to the bench. Per...

Since the chances of Griffey to the Sox would have been seen as less than 1% yesterday, I wouldn't go assuming anything.